The Key-Driven Calculator

Whilethese single-digit adding machines have been used to illustrate how the control, which was lacking in the Hill invention, had been recognized by other inventors as a necessary requisite to the key-drive, it should not be construed that such carrying control as had been applied to their inventions was of a type that could be used in the Hill machine or in any multiple-order key-driven machine. It was thirty years after the first attempt to control a key-driven machine was made before an operative multiple-order key-driven machine, with a control that would prevent over-rotation, was finally invented.

Theory versus the concrete

Theoretically, it would seem that the only feature or element lacking in the Art prior to 1886, to produce a real key-driven calculator was means that would control the carrying and also leave the carried wheel free for key actuation. It was, however, quite a different problem. Theoretical functions may be patched together to make a theoretical machine; but that is only theory and not the concrete.

All but one of the generic elements solved

To take fragmental parts of such machines as were disclosed in the Art and patch them together into anything practical was impossible, even if one had been familiar with the Art and could devise mechanism to supply the new element. That is, leaving aside the broad or generic theoreticalelements, which today, from knowledge gained by later inventions, serve the make-up of a key-driven calculator, there was still lacking any concrete example or specific design of a whole machine, as there was no such machine disclosed in the drawings of patents, or any known mechanism which, if arranged in multiples, would be operative as a practical machine even if mechanism to supply the new element were to be added.

In other words, while it is conceded from our present knowledge that all but one of the generic theoretical elements had been solved as disclosed in the various before-named machines, it required the application of these elements in a different way from anything before disclosed; which in itself required a different concrete form of the generic principles for the whole machine as well as a generic form of invention covering the new theoretical element.

It may be easy to analyze that which exists, but quite a different story to conceive that which did not exist. With reference to the Art, however, the production of the new element is a feature that may be credited without question. The concrete does not enter into it other than as proof that a new feature has been created.

Originality of inventions

While the discussion of the Art from a scientific standpoint brings together in after years what has been accomplished by different inventors, it is doubtful whether any of these early inventors had other knowledge than what may possibly have been obtained from seeing one of the foreign-made crank-driven machines. All inventors work with an idea obtained from some source, but on the whole few copy inventions of others. When an Art is fully established, however, and machinesrepresenting the Art are to be found on the market and the principal features of such machines are portrayed in a later patent, it may rightly be called a copy. To assume, however, that a novice has taken the trouble to delve into the archives of the patent office and study the scattered theoretical elements of the Art and supply a new element to make a combination that is needed to produce a practical key-driven calculator, is not a probable assumption. But allowing such assumption were possible, it is evident that from anything that the Art disclosed prior to 1887 it was not possible to solve the concrete production of a key-driven calculator.

A conception which led to the final solution

In 1884, a young machinist, while running a planer, conceived an idea from watching its ratchet feed motion, which was indirectly responsible for the final solution of the multiple-order key-driven calculating machine. The motion, which was like that to be found on all planing machines, could be adjusted to ratchet one, two, three, four or more teeth for a fine or coarse feed.

While there is nothing in such a motion that would in any way solve the problem of the modern calculator, it was enough to excite the ambitions of the man who did finally solve it. It is stated that the young man, after months of thought, made a wooden model, which he finished early in 1885. This model is extant, and is illustrated on theopposite page.

The inventor was Dorr E. Felt, who is well known in the calculating machine Art as the manufacturer of the “Comptometer,” and in public life as a keen student of economic and scientific subjects. The wooden model, as will be noted, was crude, but it held the nucleus of the machine to come.

“Macaroni Box” Model

Dorr E. Felt

Mr. Felt has given some interesting facts regarding his experience in making the wooden model.

Evolution of an invention

He says: “Watching the planer-feed set me to scheming on ideas for a machine to simplify the hard grind of the bookkeeper in his day’s calculation of accounts.

“I realized that for a machine to hold any value to an accountant, it must have greater capacity than the average expert accountant. Now I knew that many accountants could mentally add four columns of figures at a time, so I decided that I must beat that in designing my machine. Therefore, I worked on the principle of duplicate denominational orders that could be stretched to any capacity within reason. The plan I finally settled on is displayed in what is generally known as the “Macaroni Box” model. This crude model was made under rather adverse circumstances.

“The construction of such a complicated machine from metal, as I had schemed up, was not within my reach from a monetary standpoint, so I decided to put my ideas into wood.

Trials of an inventor

“It was near Thanksgiving Day of 1884, and I decided to use the holiday in the construction of the wooden model. I went to the grocer’s and selected a box which seemed to me to be about the right size for the casing. It was a macaroni box, so I have always called it the macaroni box model. For keys I procured some meat skewers from the butcher around the corner and some staples from a hardware store for the key guides and an assortment of elastic bands to be used for springs. When Thanksgiving day came I got up early and went to work with a few tools, principally a jack knife.

“I soon discovered that there were some parts which would require better tools than I had at hand for the purpose, and when night came I found that the model I had expected to construct in a day was a long way from being complete or in working order. I finally had some of the parts made out of metal, and finished the model soon after New Year’s day, 1885.”

The first “Comptometer”

By further experimenting the scheme of the wooden model was improved upon, and Felt produced, in the fall of 1886, a finished practical machine made of metal. This machine is illustrated on theopposite page.

Referring to theillustration of Felt’s first metal machine, it will be noted that the machine has been partly dismantled. The model was robbed of some of its parts to be used as samples for the manufacture of a lot of machines that were made later. In view of the fact that this machine is the first operative multiple-order key-driven calculating machine made, it seems a shame that it had to be so dismantled; but the remaining orders are operative and serve well to demonstrate the claims held for it.

Felt patent 371,496

The mechanism of the machine is illustrated in the reproduction of thedrawings of Felt’s patent, 371,496, on page 58. The specification of this patent shows that it was applied for in March, 1887, and issued October 11, 1887.

From the outward appearance of the machine it has the same general scheme of formation as is disclosed in the wooden model.

The First “Comptometer”

From Drawings of Felt Patent No. 371,496

Description of Felt calculator

The constructional scheme of the mechanism consists of a series of numeral wheels, marked A in thepatent drawings. Each wheel is provided with a ratchet wheel, and co-acting with the ratchet is a pawl mounted on a disc E², carried by the pinion E¹, which is rotatably mounted on the same axis as the numeral wheel. The arrangement of these parts is such that a rotating motion given any of the pinions E¹, in a clockwise direction,as shown in the drawings, would give a like action to their respective numeral wheels; but any motion of the pinions in an anti-clockwise direction would have no effect on the numeral wheels, owing to back-stop pawls K, and stop-pins T, provided to allow movement of the numeral wheels in but one direction.

Co-acting with each pinion E¹, is shown a long lever D, pivoted at the rear of the machine and provided with a segmental gear rack which meshes with the teeth of the pinion E¹. This lever comes under what is now generally termed a segment lever.

Each lever is provided with a spring S, which normally holds the front or rack end upward in the position shown inFig. 1, and has co-acting with it a series of nine depressable keys which protrude through the casing and contact with the upper edge of the lever.

The arrangement of the keys with their segment levers provides that the depression of any key will depress the segment lever of that order, which in turn will rotate the pinion E¹ and its numeral wheel.

While this arrangement is such that each key of a series gives a different degree of leverage action to the segment lever, and in turn a degree of rotation to the numeral wheel of the same order in accordancewith the numerical value of the key depressed, it may be conceived that the momentum set up by the quick stroke of a key would set the numeral wheel spinning perhaps two or three revolutions, or at any rate way beyond the point it should stop at to register correctly.

To preserve correct actuation of the mechanism and overcome its momentum, Felt provided a detent toothed lever for each numeral wheel, which will be found marked J¹ in thedrawings. To this lever he linked another lever G, which extended below the keys, and arranged the length of the key-stems so that when each key had revolved the numeral wheel the proper distance, the key will have engaged the lever G, and through the link connection will have caused the detent tooth of the lever J¹ to engage one of the pins T, of the numeral wheel, thus bringing the numeral wheel and the whole train of mechanism to a dead stop.

This combination was timed so that the (1) key would add one, the (2) key would add two, etc., up to nine for the (9) key. Thus the prime actuation of each wheel was made safe and positive.

Recapitulation of Art prior to Felt calculator

Before explaining the means by which the carry of the tens was effected in the Felt machine without interfering with multiple-order prime actuation, it will perhaps help the reader to recapitulate on what the Art already offered.

Going back to the Art, prior to Felt’s invention, there are a few facts worth reconsidering that point to the broadly new contributions presented in the Felt invention, and combining these facts with a little theory may perhaps give a clearer understanding of what was put into practice.

In most lines of mechanical engineering in the past, the term “theory” connected with mechanical construction was a bugaboo. But the solution of the modern calculating machine was wholly dependent upon it.

Let us summarize on the Art, prior to Felt’s invention. A calculating machine that would calculate, if we eliminate the key-driven feature, was old. The key-driven feature applied to adding mechanism was old as adapted to a single-order machine with a capacity for adding only a single column of digits.

Why Hill failed to produce an operative machine

Hill attempted to make a multiple order key-driven machine, but failed because he did not theorize on the necessities involved in the physical laws of mechanics.

Hill saw only the columnar arrangement of the ordinal division of the keyboard, and his thought did not pass beyond such relation of the keys for conveyance. There is no desire to belittle this feature, but it did not solve the problem that was set forth in the specification and claims of his patent; neither did it solve it for anyone else who wished to undertake the making of such a machine.

Idiosyncrasies of force and motion increased by use of keys

The introduction of keys as a driving feature in the calculating machine Art demanded design and construction suitable to control the new idiosyncrasies of force and motion injected into the Art by their use, of which the elements of inertia and momentum were the most troublesome.

Light construction a feature

Hill, in the design and construction of his machine, ignored these two elementary features of mechanics and paid the penalty by defeat. The tremendous speed transmitted to the parts of a key-driven machine, which has already been illustrated, required that lightness in construction which is absolutely necessary to reduce inertia to aminimum, should be observed. The Hill machine design is absolutely lacking in such thought. The diameter of the numeral wheel and its heavy construction alone show this. Lightness of construction also enters into the control of momentum when the mechanism must suddenly be brought to a dead stop in its lightning-speed action. A heavily-constructed numeral wheel like that shown in the Hill patent would be as hard to check as it would to start, even if Hill had provided means for checking it.

Strength of design and construction, without the usual increase in weight to attain such end, but above all, the absolute control of momentum, were features that had to be worked out.

Robjohn partly recognized these features, but he limited the application of such reasoning to the prime actuation of a single order, and made nothing operable in a multiple key-driven machine.

Spalding and Bouchet recognized that the application of control was necessary for both prime actuation and carrying, but, like Robjohn, they devised nothing that would operate with a series of keys beyond a single order.

Operative features necessary

An operative principle for control under prime actuation was perhaps present in some of the single-order key-driven machines, but whatever existed was applied to machines with keys arranged in the bank form of construction, and, to be used with the keys in columnar formation, required at least a new constructive type of invention. But none of the means of control for carrying, prior to Felt’s invention, held any feature that would solve the problem in a multiple-order machine.

Classification of the features contained in the early Art of key-driven machines

While all the machines referred to have not been illustrated and described here, fair samples of the type that have any pertinence to the Art have been discussed, and those not illustrated would add nothing more than has been shown. A classification of the inventions referred to may be made as follows:

Parmelee and Stetner had no carrying mechanism; Hill, Robjohn, Borland and Hoffman, Swem, Lindholm and Smith had no control for the carry. Carroll, Bouchet and Spalding show a control for the carrying action, which in itself would defeat the use of a higher wheel for prime actuation, and which obviously would also defeat its use in a multiple-order key-driven machine.

One of the principal reasons why theory was necessary to solve the problem of the key-driven calculator existed in the impossibility of seeing what took place in the action of the mechanism under the lightning speed which it receives in operation. Almost any old device could be made to operate if moved slow enough to see and study its action; but the same mechanism that would operate under slow action would not operate correctly under the lightning-speed action they could receive from key depression. Only theoretical reasoning could be used to analyze the cause when key-driven mechanism failed to operate correctly.

Carrying mechanism of Felt’s calculator

Referring again to thedrawings of the Felt patent, which illustrate the first embodiment of a multiple-order key-driven calculating machine, we find, what Felt calls in the claims and specifications, a carrying mechanism for a multiple-order key-driven calculating machine. This mechanism was, as set forth in thespecification, a mechanism for transferring the tens, which have been accumulated by one order, to a higher order, by adding one to the wheel of higher order for each accumulation of ten by the lower order wheel. This, in the Felt machine, as in most machines, was effected by the rotation of a numbered drum, called the numeral wheel, marked with the nine digits and cipher.

Transfer devices

The term “transfer device” for such mechanism was in common use, and as a term it fits certain parts of all classes of devices used for that purpose, whether for a crank-driven, key-driven, or any other type of multiple-order or single-order machine. But in the Felt invention we find it was not the simple device generally used for transferring the tens. It was, in fact, a combination of devices co-acting with each other which, in the specification of the patent, was termed the carrying mechanism.

Carrying mechanism versus mere transfer devices

Now, carrying mechanism may in a sense be termed a transfer device, as one of its functions is that of transferring power to carry the tens, but a mere transfer device may not be truthfully termed a carrying mechanism for a multiple-order key-driven machine unless it performs the functions that go to make up a correct carrying of the tens in that class of machine, and which we find laid down under the head of carrying mechanism in the Felt patents, where we find the first operative carrying mechanism ever invented for a multiple-order key-driven machine.

The functions demanded of such a piece of mechanism are as follows: First, the storing of power to perform the carry; second, the unlockingof the numeral wheel to be carried; third, the delivery of the power stored to perform such carry; fourth, the stopping and locking of the carried wheel when it has been moved to register such carry; and fifth, clearing the carrying-lock during prime actuation. A seemingly simple operation, but let those who have tried to construct such mechanism judge; they at least have some idea of it and they will no doubt bow their heads in acknowledgment of the difficulties involved in this accomplishment.

Mechanism for carrying the tens in single digit adders was one thing, and such as was used could well be called a transfer device; but mechanism for carrying the tens in a real key-driven calculating machine was another thing, and a feature not solved until Felt solved it, and justly called such combination of devices a “carrying mechanism.”

Details of Felt carrying mechanism

In the Felt machine, the carrying mechanism consisted of a lever and ratchet pawl action, constructed of the parts M, m², operated by a spring m, the pawl acting upon the numeral wheel pins T, to ratchet the wheel forward under the spring power. The power in the spring was developed from the rotation of the lower wheel, which through the means of an envolute cam[2]attached to left side of each wheel, operated the carrying lever in the opposite direction to that in which it was operated by the spring. As the carrying lever passed the highest point of the cam spiral and dropped off, the stored power in the spring retracted the lever M, and the pawl m², acting on the higher order wheel pins T, and moved it one-tenth of a revolution.

This part of the mechanism was in principle an old and commonly-used device for a one-step ratchet motion used in the carry of the tens. It served as a means of storing and transferring power from the lower wheel to actuate the higher wheel in a carrying operation, but a wholly unqualified action without control.

In the Felt machine a spring-actuated lever N, mounted on the same axis with the carrying lever, and provided with a detent stop-hook at its upper end, served to engage the numeral wheel at the end of its carried action, and normally hold it locked.

An arm or pin P, fixed in and extending from the left side of the carrying lever and through a hole in the detent lever, acted to withdraw the detent lever from its locking engagement with the numeral wheel as the carrying lever reached the extreme point of retraction; thus the wheel to be carried was unlocked.

Pivoted to the side of the detent lever is a catch O. This catch or latch is so arranged as to hook on to a cross-rod q, especially constructed to co-act with the catch and hold the detent lever against immediate relocking of the numeral wheel as the carrying lever and pawl act in a carrying motion. The latch has a tail or arm p, which co-acts with the pin P on the carrying lever in such a way as to release the latch as the carrying lever finishes its carrying function.

Thus the detent lever N is again free to engage one of the control or stop-pins T to stop and lock the carried numeral wheel when the carrying lever and pawl, through the action of the spring stored in the carrying, has moved the wheel the proper distance.

Bill for First Manufacturing Tools of the “Comptometer”

A lot of functions to take place in ¹/₁₆₅ of a second, but it worked. The timing of the stop and locking detents, of course, was one of the finest features.

Early Comptometer

The normal engagement of the carrying detent, it may be understood, would prevent the movement of the wheel by key action or prime actuation, but the patent shows how Felt overcame this.

The carrying stop and locking detent lever N is provided with a cam-arm or pin N, which was arranged to co-act with the cam disc E (see Fig. 1), fast to the prime actuating pinion E. The cam surface was short and performed its function during a short lost motion arranged to take place before the ratchet pawl would pick up and move the numeral wheel under key actuation.

The camming action was outward and away from the center, and thus released the carrying stop from its locking position with the numeral wheel, and continued rotation of the pinion and cam disc would hold the lock out of action until the parts had returned to normal.

With the return action of the keys, segment lever, pinion and cam disc, through the action of a spring attached to the segment lever, the carrying stop detent will again engage and lock the numeral wheel.

Manufacture of the Felt calculator

Felt really started to manufacture his calculating machine in the fall of 1886, after perfecting his invention. Having only a very limited amount of money with which to produce machines, young Felt, then but 24 years of age, was obliged to make the machines himself, but with the aid of some dies which he had made for some of the principal parts (see reproduction of billfor dies on opposite page),he was able to produce eight finished machines before September, 1887. Two of these machines were immediately put into service, for the training of operators, as soon as they were finished.

Trade name of Felt calculator

Of the first trained operators to operate these machines, which were given the trademark name “Comptometer,” one was Geo. D. Mackay, and another was Geo. W. Martin. After three or four months’ practice Mr. Martin demonstrated one of these machines to such firms as Sprague, Warner & Co., Pitkin & Brooks, The Chicago Daily News, and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co., and finally took employment with the Equitable Gas Light & Fuel Co. of Chicago (see letter on opposite page) as operator of the “Comptometer.” The Gas Co. has since been merged with several other companies into the Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. of Chicago.

A very high testimonial of the qualities of the Felt invention was given by Mr. Martin in 1888, a year after he entered the employment of the Gas Co., and isreproduced on page 72.

Another fine testimonial was given by Geo. A. Yulle, Secy. & Treas. of the Chicago Gas Light & Coke Co., in September, 1888 (see page 74). Mr. Mackay, the other operator, secured employment with Albert Dickinson & Co., Seed Merchants, as operator of the “Comptometer.” Mr. Mackay was interviewed a few months ago, and was at that time, after thirty years, still with the same firm, and a strong advocate of the “Comptometer.”

Letter from Geo. W. Martin

Testimonial

Letters from Elliott and Rosecrans

Felt calculator Exhibit at National Museum

In September, 1887, Felt took one of the first eight machines to Washington and exhibited it to Gen. W. S. Rosecrans, then Registrar of the Treasury, and left the machine in the office of Dr. E. B. Elliott, Actuary of the Treasury, where it was put into constant use. Proof of the date of this use of Felt’s invention in the Treasury is set forth in the reproduction of two letters (see opposite page), one was written by Mr. Elliott and another by Gen. W. S. Rosecrans, in answer to an inquiry of the Hall Typewriter Co. of Salem, Mass. Another of the first eight machines was placed with Dr. Daniel Draper, of the N. Y. State Weather Bureau, New York City.

Felt finally closed a deal with Mr. Robert Tarrant of Chicago, whereby a partnership contract was signed November 28, 1887. The partnership was incorporated January 25, 1889, under the name of the Felt & Tarrant Mfg. Co., who are still manufacturing and selling “Comptometers” under that name.

Significant proof of Felt’s claim of priority

Laying aside all the evidence set forth in the foregoing history of key-driven machines and their idiosyncrasies, significant proof of Felt’s claim as the first inventor of the modern calculating machine is justified by the fact that no other multiple-order key-driven calculating machine was placed on the market prior to 1902.

Lest we lose sight of a most important feature in dealing with the Art of the Modern Calculator, we should call to mind the fact that as Felt was the originator of this type of machine, he was also the originator of the scheme of operation in its performance of the many and varied short cuts in arithmetical calculation.

The performance of calculation on machines of the older Art differed so entirely from the new that any scheme of operation that may have beendevised for their use would lend nothing to the derivation of the new process for operating the key-driven machine of the new Art.

Rules for operation an important factor of modern calculator

A superficial examination of one of the instruction books of the “Comptometer” will convince most any one that it is not only the mechanism of the machine that made the modern calculator so valuable to the business world, but also the schemes laid down for its use. The instructions for figuring Multiplication, Subtraction, Division, Square Root, Cube Root, Interest, Exchange, Discount, English Currency, etc., involved hard study to devise such simple methods and rules.

The instruction books written by Felt for the “Comptometer, the Modern Calculator,” reflect the genius disclosed in the invention of the machine itself.

From Drawings of Barbour Patent No. 133,188

Back to Index Next